The prosecution calls its final two witnesses during the sentencing phase of the Bradley Manning trial. Pic by Stoeckley.

3:39 PM EST Just over 11 hours of testimony on classified evidence has been given by government witnesses in closed sessions. It has all been evidence related to alleged damage or harm caused by Manning.

The vast amount of evidence prosecutors believe they have against Manning will not be known to the public when he is ultimately sentenced. The press will have what came out in open court but won’t no what in closed sessions influences the ultimate decision, which is a prime feature of a national security leaks case.

3:37 PM EST The government calls its last witness, Maj. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who was the J5 of CENTCOM from summer 2010 to August 2012. He was involved in future planning efforts for operations. His testimony in open court was very brief and limited to background information. The court went into a closed session after it was announced that the defense would begin its sentencing case on Monday.

12:10 PM EST Court is in a closed session right now, with Rear Adm. Donegan giving testimony on alleged harm or damage caused by the war logs and US State Embassy cables that were released.

No specific evidence was presented in open court to indicate actual examples of individuals injured or harmed by the Taliban had occurred because their name was in the war logs. So far, all evidence has been predominantly how US forces took precautions to keep people safe. That is proper aggravation evidence and, to the extent that it adds up, resources expended will increase Manning’s potential sentence for each offense.

The proceedings will resume with an open session at 3 pm EST.

12:05 PM EST In some cases, according to Rear Adm. Donegan, entire villages in Afghanistan were being informed that they could be tied to cooperating with the United States because of the WikiLeaks release. The issue being, as Donegan testified, that shadow governors of the Taliban are in every area of Afghanistan and the village may have been at risk for working with the US.

12:03 PM EST “Source” was broadly defined by the Information Review Task Force (including CENTCOM) as any “name that could be tied to cooperating with the United States.” These people were not HUMINT sources or informants. They were people who could be perceived as friendly to the United States because their names were in documents released.

12:00 PM EST Orders issued by Rear Admiral Kevin M. Donegan directed commanders to inform individuals that were named in the war logs and report back on whether the individuals were notified, how they were notified and, if they were not notified, why.

11:50 AM EST Rear Admiral Kevin M. Donegan, who was the director of operations at US Central Command when information was released by WikiLeaks, took the stand as a government witness.

He issued two fragmentary orders to US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan that advised commanders they had duty to inform anyone named in the war logs that the ”enemy likely had access to knowing that they were a source to the United States and they’re likely to be in danger.”

Original Post

The government is scheduled to wrap its sentencing case in the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning. They will likely call two witnesses from the Pentagon, who will testify.

Witnesses for today will testify in open and closed sessions. The government intends to qualify both as experts. That will happen in open court. Some background information will be given, and then a military prosecutor will call for the court to go into a closed session for classified testimony.

Somewhere around half of the sentencing phase has been closed to the press and public for testimony involving alleged damage or harm caused by Manning’s disclosures to WikiLeaks.

The defense has objected to evidence in testimony throughout the government’s sentencing case because, as they have argued, it is speculative or examples of anything that directly resulted from his disclosures.

Yesterday, the defense raised objections constantly during a cross-examination of a militant Islamist ideology expert, who took the stand to discuss how documents could have been useful to al Qaeda or al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The judge allowed the expert, Maj. Gen. Youssef Aboul-Enein, to give speculative evidence and “could cause damage” testimony that may not be admissible so she could hear it herself and then issue a ruling on whether she would consider the evidence the following day.

This is a highly unusual procedure, which has been adopted, one that deserves more scrutiny and attention. Because Manning decided to be tried by a judge and not a panel (which is like a jury), the judge has two roles to play: one as the fact-finder and one as the interlocutor.

As interlocutor, she reviews whether evidence is admissible. Evidence admitted can then be considered when making a decision on Manning’s sentence.

*

Still a low number of press in the media center. The New York Times was here yesterday but did not return today. Courthouse News‘ Adam Klasfeld, AP’s David Dishneau, Bradley Manning Support Network reporter Nathan Fuller, independent journalist Alexa O’Brien and Reuters’ Tom Ramstack.

When US media organizations are not sending reporters, what they fall back on for coverage of the sentencing are newswire stories from AP or Reuters. Ramstack emphasized how Al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts benefited, even though there was no specific evidence presented in court to indicate this was the case.

The government mentioned “Al Qaeda” in the courtroom so the story by Ramstack was featured on NBC News’ website yesterday. They had not featured anything on the sentencing on their front page throughout the entire week.

The Guardian has also been republishing AP stories with headlines that do not accurately present what happened. It is not that they are being unfair to Manning, but that the headlines create a story that is not true. For example, ”Expert questions WikiLeaks’ use to al Qaeda.” Aboul-Enein never did that. He was certain the documents Manning released could have been useful to al Qaeda and presented all the ways they could have benefited, despite the fact they had not. They also put up a story under the headline, “Judge rejects claim leaks had ‘chilling effect.’” The judge did not do that. She just decided some evidence related to a “chilling effect” alleged by State Department witnesses was speculative and inadmissible.

it is a felony to attempt to use the classification system to hide a crime or protect the powerful from embarrassment. Such material remains unclassified after being stamped.
Title18US Code contains the law. Executive order 13526 Sec.1.7.Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a)In no case shall information be classified, continue to be
maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1)conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2)prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
..or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”
those who illegaly search/seize docs(nsa does, manning doesnt) shulnt be arrested, shuld be banned from gov jobs maybe sml fine.
tax payer $ shuold be better spent going after mruders/tortures or helping the poor, instead of overpunishing.
no one who hasnt touched someone agianst their will, kidnapped, physcially trapped, physcially abuse/neglected, murdered, tortured, disarmed, or physcially directly endangered someone(ex pointing a gun at someone), shuld go to life in prison.

NSA is guilty of criminal ESPIONAGE, NOT MANNING, according to espionage act: “whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States..”"gross negligence permits”"document”"to be removed from its proper place..or delivered..abstracted..punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.”"intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States..communicated, delivers, or transmits..document..punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years..”
gov admitted manning leaks didnt put anyone at risk. gov cant point to anything manning leaked that could be used to injure the us.

Great point if the President does it its not a crime I don’t think is a valid defense. Nor is the idea that reporting crimes by the WH, Government, Army a crime.
Unless of course Bradley is convicted then the reality of the legal world will trump actual law on the books and we will be in kangaroo court territory.

The defense has objected to evidence in testimony throughout the government’s sentencing case because, as they have argued, it is speculative or examples of anything that directly resulted from his disclosures.

Doesn’t proof of a crime mean showing actual damages as opposed to speculative ones? I can easily speculate that if Bradley had not exposed American crimes that America would have committed more crimes had they not been found out.
Look at Viet Nam we mistreated the people there and then we wondered how the Enemy was able to keep finding solders to replace their losses.
Westmoreland was SURE that he was killing the enemy at a rate that meant the Enemy would not be able to replace their losses however his actions/crimes led to more people joining the enemy.
I thought there was a mountain of West Point research on the Mistakes of Viet Nam?
Instead it seems Westmoreland was believed and we only lost because we gave up killing, crimes and oppressing, the people before we could see success. Or as Dick Cheney puts it Will we lacked the Will.
But Will implies the cost in lives and cash for years is worth the goal. The 1% don’t fight and they themselves refuse to pay for their war instead they want our SS to keep paying for the debts racked up by the war.

I don’t know of one that specifically addresses your topic, but you might like to read the works of Andrew Bacevich, especially, “The New American Militarism.” His stuff is the closest thing that comes to mind.

Usually proof of crimes in the real world means showing actual examples of injury. Manning, however, is in Alice in Wonderland world where things mean what the Red Queen says they mean. Anyway, as you wondered later about being in kangaroo court land, we are there. If we weren’t there wouldn’t be this trial. The result is foreordained, it is just a question of how much the law has to be twisted to get there; that is why all of this speculation is allowed. Ordinarily it would simply be thrown out.

The other day the court heard from an “expert” on militant Islamic ideology who takes as his over-arching framework the bullshit propaganda of a “clash of civilizations” that was entirely invented by US NeoCons as justification for the GWOT and projects it on the supposed objects of his study. Can you imagine someone who thinks like this being considered an expert? (Of course from the military’s perspective, he is: He tells them what they want to hear about their manufactured enemies.) Then, when asked how Al Qaeda and ilk have profited from Manning’s actions, he could only guess at possibilities. And after all this, the judge agrees to take this “expert” and his speculation into serious consideration as evidence. Kangaroo is indeed the only appropriate descriptor.

“The vast amount of evidence prosecutors believe they have against Manning will not be known to the public when he is ultimately sentenced. The press will have what came out in open court but won’t no what in closed sessions influences the ultimate decision, which is a prime feature of a national security leaks case.”

It sounds like a prime feature of a judicial system that has done away with habeas corpus.

The problem is; this is not, “The Judicial System”, it is a military court. The same doodle has been pulled with the Guantanamo prisoners. Even if it were a civilian court, they would try the same maneuvers, but the injustice would be more obvious.
I have a suspicion that in the wake of Edward Snowdon’s disclosures, we will soon see anyone even remotely connected with the government or the military, assigned to a military designation. Then all cases will be heard by military courts. Obviously, the backlog would be monumental. So any disidents or even people under suspicion would just be warehoused in detention facilities under the NDAA or other security directives.
Anyone unhappy with their positions, should seriously consider getting out now.

Well looking at the majority of the views here 99.9% have never served in the military have no idea what you are saying. To call you liberals would be an insult to liberals to call socialist would disgrace them you are closer to commies.

Before you say any about military law when you sign up you lose the freedoms you fight for. You provide a service all civilians want but only a small percentage ever serve. The world you (civilians) live in is narrow one sided and has no true direction. I spent 24 years defending this country. For you that want to compare Vietnam to Iraq or Afghanistan your crazy unless you are speaking how idiot running the country wants to make it political which is exactly happened in both now. Political involvement in a war kill Soldiers.

If you think I support this kid you are nuts I am a strong supporter of him going away for so long when he gets out it is in a box to an incinerator made to ashes and dumped in the international waters. I think the 136 years he could get is too short. If you have never waked in the boots of a soldier never discuss something you’ve never done or been there for. I have seen death and have no remorse it sucks but you will learn fight or flight you better fight fleeing will get you killed

Snowden I really am that up set he blew the whistle how our government is watching its citizens or government is quickly becoming communist thank you Obamanator for killing America. Better like what you have because the 69 other countries have it much worse them we do. Including Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America.

If you really believe that you have been fighting to defend the freedoms of US citizens, why does it bother you so much when they exercise those freedoms?

Why do you conflate giving up one’s freedom as a soldier with giving up one’s moral responsibility as well? The UCMJ explicitly dictates that a member of the military not give up their moral responsibility, even when it means disobeying an order.